Courage

Charles Krauthammer clearly lays out the case for why Bush needs to be re-elected. The whole argument can be summed up in one word: courage. It was clear that going to war in Iraq was a huge political risk for Bush, and it has turned into somewhat of liability for his re-election.

Bush was rewarded for this extraordinary first victory with overwhelming popular support. He could easily have spent the next two years lavishing attention on domestic affairs, ostentatiously opening a bioterrorism triage center in every clinic in every hamlet in America. Punctuate that with regular announcements about the hunt for al-Qaeda, and he could have coasted to re-election as Father Protector.

Instead, he took on Iraq. Everyone knew that Iraq would be difficult and dangerous. But Bush believed that Saddam Hussein and the threat he represented had to be removed. Our postwar troubles have made us believe, as if under amnesia, that the choice was between war and some kind of sustainable equilibrium. It was not.
[...]
He could have played it safe, Kerry-like: nuancing the issue to death, kicking the problem into the future. He did not. That is leadership. That is political courage. That is what wartime demands.

And this is what Democrats still don't understand - we are in a war as significant as the Cold War. The Democrats were on the wrong side of history in that confrontation and they are in jeopardy of putting themselves on the wrong side in this war also. Their response to both of these wars has been the same - to downplay the danger and to attempt to negotiate a "peace in our time". Victory is not an option for them. We can not afford this type of delusion in this war. As much as we like, we can not take another holiday from history.